132 homes and commercial space at 1 Burlington Lane, Chiswick, London W4

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing building and creating 132 homes, flexible commercial space, parking, amenity areas, landscaping and public realm improvements.

“P/2024/2610 Address: Burlington Lane, Chiswick, W4 2RR Ward: Chiswick Homefields Proposal: Demolition and redevelopment of the site to provide a part-6, part-10 storey building to create 132 self- contained flats and terrace of 3-storey properties, comprising of residential development, flexible commercial floorspace with associated car parking, private & communal amenity space, landscaping, refuse, cycle and public realm improvements.”

“SUMMARY 1.1 The application proposes to demolish the existing building at No 1 Burlington Lane W4 2RR (the Site) and to redevelop the Site to deliver 132 residential units, flexible commercial floorspace alongside associated amenity space, landscaping and public realm enhancements. The proposed scheme comprises three main elements, ranging from 3 to 10 storeys. The maximum height of the tallest building is 34.96m.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contained a five-storey office building beside Burlington Lane, Hogarth Lane, Hogarth Roundabout and the Chiswick Gate development.

“SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site (approximately 0.34 hectares) is currently occupied by a five-storey office building (accommodating 5,838sqm of office floor space) that fronts onto the Hogarth Roundabout, formally referred to as the McCormack buildings. The adjacent site directly to the north, known as Axis House or 3 Burlington Lane, accommodates a 162 room hotel, which is a separate site.”

“Kew Gardens, a World Heritage Site, is located approximately 3 km to the west of the site, south of the River Thames. The Site has a PTAL rating of 1b (very poor) and is predominantly located in Flood Zone 1 (low risk), with the front/south-western edge of the Site located in Flood Zone 2 (medium risk). The Site has not been identified as a Site Allocation in the emerging Hounslow Local Plan, and there are no Local Plan designations on the site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and legal agreements, giving significant weight to housing, affordable homes, public realm and landscaping benefits.

“The Scheme would have less than substantial harm to the setting of the heritage assets nearby, including Old Chiswick Conservation Area, St Nicholas Church and Chiswick House and Gardens, with a varied degree of harm, ranging from low to middle. A balancing exercise has been undertaken in accordance with NPPF Paragraphs 212 and 214 to weigh the identified harm against the public benefits of the proposal.”

“The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and a Section 278 Agreement.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Historic England and the Council’s Conservation Team raised heritage concerns, while other consultees generally had no objection or sought further details and conditions.

“Thames Water Utilities • No objection, subject to condition on the piling method statement (condition 31) and informative 5.7 Historic England (Archaeological) • No response 5.8 London Underground Ltd • No objection 5.9 Historic England (HE) • HE has no in-principle issue with the redevelopment of this site and notes that there are opportunities to better integrate it within its surroundings.”

“Recommendation: • That Hounslow Council be advised that the application does not yet comply with the London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 93. Possible remedies set out in this report could address these deficiencies. Internal consultees 5.19 All related departments within the Council have been consulted, and their responses are incorporated into the assessment and report below.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A planning lawyer and community representative spoke against the application, while the applicant and its agent spoke in support.

Members’ debate

Members considered heritage harm, the fallback scheme, affordable housing, parking, transport, public benefits and the quality of the proposed homes.

“[name withheld] clarified that the fall-back permission referred to many times was an important material consideration - if Members were not to approve the Application, there was a chance that the fall-back permission may be pursued, which was for the owner of the land to decide. It was not necessary for the Committee to examine all the details considered by the Inspector at the Planning Appeal, only its outcome.”

“Cllr Tom Bruce acknowledged that there would be harm on certain views caused by the Application and that affordable housing provision was lower than may be wished for but felt that overall benefits outweighed harm enough for members to support the Application, albeit with some reservations. The quality of homes, design and amenities offered were superior to the fall-back permission.”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was approved subject to conditions, the reduced-parking condition, a Section 106 Agreement and a Section 278 Agreement.

“Cllr Tom Bruce moved that the officer’s recommendation, with the addition of the above additional condition, be approved, seconded by Cllr Ghazala Butt. Members voted to approve the Application (as amended) by a majority vote of 13 to 1.”

“Resolved – that planning permission for planning application P2024/2610, demolition and redevelopment of the site to provide a part-6, part-10 storey building to create 132 self- contained flats and terrace of 3-storey properties, comprising of residential development, flexible commercial floorspace with associated car parking, private & communal amenity space, landscaping, refuse, cycle and public realm improvements, was approved subject to conditions (including the…”

Minutes